Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p

[Nikunj Kela]

On 9/5/2024 7:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/09/2024 16:15, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>> On 9/5/2024 7:09 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2024 16:03, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2024 1:04 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 04/09/2024 23:06, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/2024 9:58 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry, didn't realize SPI uses different subject format than other
>>>>>>>> subsystems. Will fix in v3. Thanks
>>>>>>> Each subsystem is free to use its own form. e.g for netdev you will
>>>>>>> want the prefix [PATCH net-next v42] net: stmmac: dwmac-qcom-ethqos:
>>>>>> of course they are! No one is disputing that.
>>>>>>> This is another reason why you should be splitting these patches per
>>>>>>> subsystem, and submitting both the DT bindings and the code changes as
>>>>>>> a two patch patchset. You can then learn how each subsystem names its
>>>>>>> patches.
>>>>>> Qualcomm QUPs chips have serial engines that can be configured as
>>>>>> UART/I2C/SPI so QUPs changes require to be pushed in one series for all
>>>>>> 3 subsystems as they all are dependent.
>>>>> No, they are not dependent. They have never been. Look how all other
>>>>> upstreaming process worked in the past.
>>>> Top level QUP node(patch#18) includes i2c,spi,uart nodes.
>>>> soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml validate those subnodes against respective
>>>> yaml. The example that is added in YAML file for QUP node will not find
>>>> sa8255p compatibles if all 4 yaml(qup, i2c, spi, serial nodes) are not
>>>> included in the same series.
>>>>
>>> So where is the dependency? I don't see it. 
>> Ok, what is your suggestion on dt-schema check failure in that case as I
>> mentioned above? Shall we remove examples from yaml that we added?
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, if you insist,
>>> provide reasons why this should be the only one patchset - from all
>>> SoCs, all companies, all developers - getting an exception from standard
>>> merging practice and from explicit rule about driver change. See
>>> submitting bindings.
>>>
>>> This was re-iterated over and over, but you keep claiming you need some
>>> sort of special treatment. If so, please provide arguments WHY this
>>> requires special treatment and *all* other contributions are fine with it.
> You did not respond to above about explaining why this patchset needs
> special treatment, so I assume there is no exception here to be granted
> so any new version will follow standard process (see submitting bindings
> / writing bindings).
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Things will be clear after you see the driver changes. Without looking
at the code, this discussion won't lead to anything constructive. So I
deferred the QUP related discussion until driver patches are posted.

Thanks,

-Nikunj


>